We ought to expect for Christians and Churches to embrace a range of acceptable stances that simultaneously reflect primary honor for God, and secondary honor for the state.  There will be certain government evils that believers simply overlook (Prov. 17:9; 19:11), either because they are preoccupied with other godly causes, unaware of the said evils, in no immediate position to alter those evils, or discerning that God has providentially ordained them to discipline society at large (Lk. 21:20-24; Rom. 1:24ff.).  Individuals and communities can and will find different creative ways to simultaneously honor some aspects of a civil law, even as they refuse to heed other aspects of the same.  Evidently, Joseph, Daniel, Nehemiah, Esther, and many others were even able to meaningfully participate in civil administrations that were grossly compromised, without neglecting their own prior, holistic commitment to God.  What this means is that Christians must not to be quick to condemn one another for their resistance, and/or failure to resist evil government policies in exactly the same manner or degree as others do.  

It seems that there is rather widespread confusion about whether Paul, Peter, and the Scriptures in general require unconditional obedience to civil leaders.  A surface reading of the relevant texts would appear to require submission without qualification—“…there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.  Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God” (Rom. 13:1-2); “Submit yourself for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors” (1 Pet. 2:13-14); “My son, fear the Lord and the king” (Prov. 24:21).  Yet, every historic expression of Christianity has recognized that there are situations in which believers may lawfully disobey civil powers—e.g. for the emancipation of slaves; the advancement of civil rights; the protection of the Jews from genocide; etc. etc.  How is this possible?  The straightforward answer is that upon a careful reading, the passages in view require general submission to governing officials, except for when their orders come into conflict with God’s commands.

Romans 13:1-7

Perhaps the simplest way to establish that Paul is not requiring unqualified submission to authority in Romans 13, is by observing that the Epistle to the Romans is itself an expression of civil disobedience, replete with admonitions to Christian citizens in the imperial city to engage in the same.

To appreciate our point, we must take into account the political context of Paul’s letter.  In Roman society, it was a treasonous offense to publicly confess any man as one’s ultimate “Lord” or “King” besides Caesar.  “Kaisar Kurios,” or “Caesar is Lord” was the mandatory confession of all Roman citizens.  The Caesars were even deified, and expressly designated as the “Son of God” on Roman currency.  There may be many gods in heaven, but Caesar alone was “Lord” in the political realm encompassed by Roman borders; borders that were ever expanding.  The seriousness of dodging confession of Caesar’s absolute political lordship was set before none other than Pontius Pilate.  After he had made an (albeit minimal) effort to have Jesus released, the Jewish authorities reminded him, “If you release this Man [Jesus], you are not a friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king [in this case, Jesus] opposes Caesar” (John 19:12).  Appealing a second time to the political demands of Roman law, when “Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your king [Jesus]?’  The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar’” (John 19:15).  Such was the proper confession of every Roman.

With this background in mind, consider that Paul’s letter to the Romans opens with an identification of Jesus Christ as “the Son of God” and “our Lord” (Rom. 1:4).  Paul is unabashedly contradicting Caesar’s claims to ultimate lordship.  This confession, in the full extent of its meaning, was flatly illegal.  Still more subversive, Paul insists that all Christians including the citizens of the imperial city must publicly confess Christ’s universal Lordship—“confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord…for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek for the same Lord is Lord of all” (Rom. 10:9, 12).  Paul is only echoing the demands that Christ Himself had placed on the disciples.  Aware that His message came into direct conflict with Jewish and Roman “courts,” “governors,” and “kings,” (Matt. 10:17-18) Jesus solemnly warned His followers, “everyone who confesses Me before men I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies Me before men I will also deny him before My Father in Heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33; cf. Luke 12:8-9).

Set within this literary context, it is rather easy to see that Paul’s admonition to submit to the government in Romans 13:1-7, is itself offered as a qualification of (a) his protracted (and illegal) teaching that Jesus (not Caesar) is Lord; and (b) his argument that justification comes by faith in Jesus (and not by obedience to the Jewish Law, or any other law for that matter).  Near the end of his argument, Paul wants the Roman Christians to know that confession of Jesus’ Lordship unto salvation by no means absolves a believer of his general responsibility to submit to civil authorities, or to their laws when set within their God-given limits.  To appreciate that Romans 13:1-7 qualifies Paul’s otherwise illegal proclamation that Jesus is Lord (Rom. 10:9), is to understand at once that believers’ submission to the government must itself be qualified by the prior demands of divine justice, and most of all, by the prior demands of the Gospel.  Thus, Paul, like Jesus before him, specifically points out that civil authorities have the right to impose taxes (Rom. 13:6-7; cf. Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Lk. 20:20-26), and to penalize evildoers.  Both of these prerogatives were granted to the civil agents of divine justice in the Scriptural record of redemptive history (Gen. 9:5-7; Ex. 21:23-25; 30:11-16; 1 Sam. 8:10-18).  By contrast, the people of God were never required to obey civil authorities when their mandates contradicted their own God-given function to “serve as a cause of fear [not] for good behavior, but for evil” (Rom. 13:3).  The Hebrew midwives who refused to report new births to the Egyptian authorities in order to prevent them from being murdered (Ex. 1:15-22); the Aaronic Priests who stood against King Uzziah when he entered God’s temple (2 Chron. 26:16-23); Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego who disobeyed Nebuchadnezzar’s mandate to worship his image (Dan. 3); Daniel, who refused to break from his regiment of prayer upon the civil penalty of death (Dan. 6); the Three Magi who refused to comply with Herod’s wishes to be informed of the whereabouts of the newborn Jesus (Matt. 2:1-12); etc. etc. etc. are all commended for their disobedience to unlawful uses of civil power.  Hence, Paul is certainly intent on upholding the principle of Proverbs 24:21—“fear the LORD and fear the king.”  But His illegal proclamation of Christ’s Lordship in Romans 1-12, demonstrates his insight that God and the king must be feared in exactly that order; submission to the former taking precedence over submission to the latter.

We will have more to say about Romans 13 shortly, but now is an appropriate time to consider the similar commendation of obedience to civil authority in Peter’s First Epistle.

I Peter 2:13-14

As we saw with Paul, Peter’s admonition to submit to the civil government must be understood within the context of a letter that unabashedly proclaims Jesus’ universal lordship (1 Pet. 1:3; 2:3; 3:15), in flat contradiction to the claims of Caesar.  Peter makes it clear that believers are bound to submit to civil authorities, only on the basis of their prior commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ—“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution…” (1 Pet. 2:13).  This can only mean that when civil powers mandate that which is directly contrary to the will of Jesus Christ, one cannot, in that particular matter, submit to them “for the Lord’s sake.” Fortunately, one need not opine as to what Peter would have personally done if the demands of a civil authority came into conflict with the absolute demands of Jesus Christ.  Luke’s historical record furnishes us with two instances in which Peter’s Gospel preaching conflicted with strict orders from rulers to desist.  On the first occasion, Peter and John compel the rulers of the Jewish community to reconsider the parameters of their own authority. Then they flatly state what they can and cannot lawfully do, in light of the demands of the Gospel—“…they [the authorities] commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.  But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 3:18-20).  The second time Peter was questioned by the Jewish council about unlawful proclamation of the Gospel, he answers on behalf of the Apostles, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Following the Apostolic example, the first three hundred years of Christendom would be baptized in the blood of countless martyrs who refused to treat Roman Law as if it could take precedence over Christ’s command to publicly confess Him before their neighbors.  The Christian Church exists because believers recognized that any and all submission to human governments must be carried out for Christ’s sake, and therefore suspended when at odds with Christ’s directives (1 Pet. 2:13). In his apocalyptic vision, the Apostle John renders it unmistakably clear that Christian resistance to authority for the sake of the Gospel is both precious in the sight of God, and the precursor to corporate rejuvenation and historical ascendency of the Christian Church over her enemies—“I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of their testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood?’…And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus….and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years (Rev. 6:9-10, 20:4).

Lesser Magistrates

Even without a robust awareness of the historical, literary, and canonical context of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:12-13, rather minimal reflection on the passages themselves yields the conclusion that a believer’s submission to civil powers cannot be absolute.  Such a flat stance toward authorities is strictly impossible since they are often at odds with one another.  Notice that both Paul and Peter are unambiguous that each and every civil officer is established by the providence of God (a concept on which we will elaborate below), and not just the highest sovereigns in a land—“there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Rom. 13:1); “Submit yourself for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors…” (2 Pet. 2:13); “be subject to rulers, to authorities” (Tit. 3:1).  Yet, Peter and Paul knew perfectly well that the Roman senate was often at odds with any given Caesar; that members of the royal family were often at odds with one another; and that Rome had succumbed to several civil wars throughout her long history.  Local prefects, like Pontius Pilate, could resist the strict application of Roman Law as he had in the case of Jesus (John 19), while others like Herod Antipas might be ambivalent (Lk. 23:6-12), and still others like the rulers of the Jews could demand a strict application of the law (Lk. 22:66-71).  Notably, Jesus Himself affirms that even though he was a lesser magistrate, Pontius Pilate’s civil authority had been given to him by God (John 19:11), no less than Caesar, Herod, or the Jewish council.  But again, these distinct civil powers were often at odds within the lifetime of Christ and the Apostles.

This inescapable feature of a fallen world renders it impossible for citizens to honor every ruler, every law, and every order all the time. Likewise, it forces the thoughtful reader to appreciate that Paul’s description of civil authority—“it is a minister of God to you for good” (Rom. 13:4)— pertains to its divinely intended function, and not to its every historical administration.  It is no secret why Paul would want to remind his readers of the positive ends for which God ordained governments. Having denied that believers are saved by adherence to the Mosaic law, Paul wants to clarify that his Gospel does not encourage a general stance of rebellion and anarchy to Roman Law, any more than it encourages believers to go on sinning after having be justified by grace alone through faith alone (Rom. 6:1ff; 7:12; 8:12).  In general, believers should submit to governing authorities in their station as “avenger[s] who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4).  For this very reason, when a ruler acts contrary to the divine design for his office and becomes a “cause of fear for good behavior” (Rom. 13:3), believers must prayerfully and thoughtfully determine how best to resist him.  Ideally, believers will be able to rally around lesser magistrates who are faithfully upholding justice, despite the despotic policies of others.  In many instances, however, believers must simply be prepared to experience civil persecution for their unwillingness to compromise their conviction (Matt. 5:10-12; 1 Pet. 3:14; John 15:18-25; 16:2; 2 Tim. 3:12), as it is based on God’s word (Rom. 14:23).

Read More